Risk Assessment of EPB Shield Construction Based on the Nonlinear FAHP Method

Wang, Xueyan; Gong, Hang; Song, Qiyu; Yan, Xiao; Luo, Zheng

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9233833

Advances in Civil Engineering

On this page

Abstract Introduction Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Construction and Management of Urban Rail Transit Systems

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 9233833 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9233833

Risk Assessment of EPB Shield Construction Based on the Nonlinear FAHP Method

Xueyan Wang,¹Hang Gong,^2,3Qiyu Song,^2,3Xiao Yan,^2,3and Zheng Luo^2,3

Academic Editor: Qian Chen

Received22 Nov 2021

Revised09 Jan 2022

Accepted18 Mar 2022

Published07 Apr 2022

Abstract

There are many risk factors in EPB shield construction. The traditional fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) method usually uses a linear analysis method to determine the risk level, but there are often some risk factors with prominent influence, which will reduce the accuracy of the evaluation results. In this paper, a new risk assessment model of Earth pressure balance (EPB) shield construction based on a nonlinear FAHP method is established by introducing nonlinear factors into the comprehensive calculation of the traditional FAHP. First, the new model establishes the framework of EPB shield construction risk analysis based on the work breakdown structure (WBS) and risk breakdown structure (RBS) methods. Then, it constructs an EPB shield construction risk index system by coupling the units of the WBS and RBS. The model constructs a fuzzy consistent judgment matrix, which replaces the 1∼9 scale. Finally, the nonlinear operator is introduced into the FAHP comprehensive calculation, considering the influence of some prominent risk factors, which improves the accuracy of the risk assessment. By applying the new model to the risk analysis of the EPB shield construction section of a tunnel project in Hangzhou, the effectiveness of the model is further verified.

1. Introduction

In China, with the continuous development of urbanization, the contradiction between limited land resources and the growing urban population has become increasingly prominent. To solve the problems of urban ground traffic congestion and land energy shortages, the development and utilization of urban underground space has become an inevitable trend of urban development to a certain stage [1, 2]. EPB shields are widely used in the underground tunnel construction of urban rail transit, utility tunnel, and other projects because of their advantages of high safety, fast excavation speed, automatic operation throughout the excavation process, and low construction labor intensity. However, EPB shield construction has the risks of water permeability, sand gushing, mud bursting, and collapse, which can easily cause large-scale surface collapse and damage to underground pipelines or surrounding buildings. Therefore, the risk assessment of urban underground space engineering has important theoretical significance to ensure the safety of construction and the surrounding environment.

In 1980, Saaty proposed analytic hierarchy process, which is a multiobjective system decision-making method combining qualitative and quantitative aspects. It is widely used in social, economic, management, military, and other fields. In 1996, Einstein outlined the basic aspects of risk analysis and decision-making, and then discussed in detail three typical rock engineering applications of risk analysis: (1) slope design, (2) fractured medium flow, and (3) tunnel excavation [3]. Fuzziness and uncertainty are one of the characteristics of risk assessment. Various uncertain factors can be expressed quantitatively by membership function, so as to realize the transformation of risk assessment from qualitative to quantitative. Based on the uncertainty model of fuzzy mathematics, Choi et al. established a standardized underground engineering evaluation method and applied this method to the Seoul metro project in South Korea for subway construction risk evaluation, which verified its effectiveness [4]. In addition, in the field of civil engineering, the factors to be considered in risk assessment can be divided into three parts: preconstruction preparation, main construction process, and auxiliary construction process according to the construction characteristics. In this regard, many scholars have carried out corresponding research according to different engineering characteristics. Dağdeviren and Yüksel studied the safety risk of TBM construction by using the FAHP and proposed an evaluation model for the TBM dynamic performance [5]. Zhou and Cao established the comprehensive evaluation index system of the foundation pit support scheme by analyzing the influencing factors of urban deep foundation pit support in soft soil area, obtained the weight value of each risk factor by using analytic hierarchy process, determined the relative superior degree matrix by logical operation, and put forward the FAHP model suitable for the optimization of urban deep foundation pit support scheme in soft soil area [6]. Liu et al. established the construction risk evaluation index system of deep foundation pit by the WBS-RBS method and established the fuzzy level assessment model of construction risk based on the theory of triangle fuzzy mathematics [7]. Deng et al. studied the construction risk of tunnel portal based on Fuzzy AHP and analyzed the Wuguangyi highway tunnel as a case study [8]. Lu et al. used the FAHP to build a model that can be used to evaluate the probability of tunnel collapse accidents [9]. Samantra et al. proposed a comprehensive risk assessment method for urban construction projects based on the fuzzy set theory [10]. Kuchta and Ptaszyńska proposed a fuzzy risk registration method to identify risks in construction projects and evaluate their attributes [11] based on the existing risk assessment theory of urban rail transit project infrastructure. According to the translational velocity and angular velocity characteristics of the TBM, Yu et al. established the dynamic performance evaluation model of the TBM by using the FAHP to determine the weight of the evaluation model [12]. Nezarat et al. used the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) to rank the geological risks of Golab tunnel construction in northwestern Isfahan (Iran) [13]. Lyu et al. proposed an improved trapezoidal fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) to evaluate the risk of infrastructure related to land subsidence in megacities and evaluated the risk of infrastructure related to land subsidence in Shanghai [14]. Hu et al. used the analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy principle to determine the weight of each index in the index system, and on this basis, finally established an evaluation system and a classification standard for the highway tunnel structure safety grade state [15]. Based on the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation theory, Zhu et al. proposed a multilevel comprehensive evaluation method for tunnel construction organizations and applied it to an example [16]. Wang et al. took surface vertical settlement, structural stress, crack displacement, and contact pressure as the early warning indicators of the underground comprehensive pipe gallery structure in the active period of ground cracks and gave the safety control value and early warning standard on the basis of the analysis results [17, 18]. Zheng et al. combined triangular fuzzy number (TFN) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) into the geographic information system (GIS) to evaluate geological disasters along the Zhengkun railway, which not only effectively predicted the risk distribution of geological disasters in the study area in recent 10 years but also put forward risk prevention management measures [19]. Obviously, the abovementioned scholars have made different contributions to the development of underground engineering risk management, but there is less risk analysis related to EPB shield construction.

Generally, FAHP can be divided into FAHP based on fuzzy number and FAHP based on fuzzy consistent matrix [20]. FAHP based on fuzzy numbers includes interval FAHP, triangular FAHP, and trapezoidal FAHP [21]. Interval FAHP uses interval numbers to represent the relative importance of factors[22∼24], while triangular/trapezoidal FAHP uses a triangle/trapezoid number to represent the relative importance in pairwise comparison [22, 23]. After constructing the judgment matrix, if the expert’s reply to the questionnaire adopts the method of pairwise comparison [24], the consistency check needs to be carried out. The consistency check mainly includes three steps: (1) calculation of consistency index; (2) determination of the average random consistency index; and (3) consistency ratio calculation[25]. When the judgment matrix does not have consistency, the factors of the judgment matrix need to be adjusted to make it consistent. This does not rule out that it needs several times of adjustment and inspection to make the judgment matrix consistent. The process is cumbersome, and the amount of calculation will increase accordingly. Therefore, Lyu et al. proposed a new questionnaire, which is composed of a comprehensive table. The first column lists all factors, and the other columns list 9 scores representing the relative importance of a factor’s contribution to construction risk (from 1 = lowest importance to 9 = highest importance). The fuzzy number is determined by scoring all factors directly by experts, and a consistent judgment matrix is established [26]. When experts consider a small number of factors, this method has higher efficiency and greater accuracy, but when experts must consider a large number of factors, the importance of some factors may not be more accurate than pairwise comparison. The FAHP based on the fuzzy consistent matrix first establishes the fuzzy complementary matrix, and then transforms it into the fuzzy consistent judgment matrix for risk assessment. Because the fuzzy consistent judgment matrix transformed from the fuzzy complementary judgment matrix meets the additive consistency condition, that is, the difference between the factors of any two rows is constant, so there is no need to do consistency test [27]. Therefore, by combining this method with pairwise comparison, it can not only ensure the accuracy of experts' scoring of factors but also meet the consistency conditions.

In this paper, the WBS-RBS method is introduced into the system decomposition of the tunnel construction work structure and construction risk source, and the framework structure of EPB shield construction risk analysis is constructed. By coupling the tunnel construction work breakdown structure and construction risk breakdown structure, the risk factors reflecting EPB shield construction are determined, and the EPB shield construction risk index system is built. On this basis, the expert questionnaire is collected by a pairwise comparison method, and the fuzzy consistency judgment matrix is established by transforming the fuzzy complementarity matrix, which not only meets the accuracy and consistency requirements of expert scoring but also avoids the cumbersome consistency test. Finally, the nonlinear operator is introduced into the FAHP comprehensive calculation to improve the accuracy of the risk assessment, and a new EPB shield construction risk assessment model based on the nonlinear fuzzy analytic hierarchy process is established. The new model is applied to the risk analysis of EPB shield construction section of a tunnel project in Hangzhou, and the validity of the model is verified. It also provides ideas and experience for risk assessment in the shield construction field by using nonlinear FAHP.

2. Risk Identification of EPB Shield Construction Based on the WBS-RBS Method

The WBS (work breakdown structure) is a method to divide project tasks into different levels. The basic principle of the WBS is to decompose project tasks into different levels by top-down, bottom-up, or analogy methods. The RBS (risk breakdown structure) is a method to decompose various major risk factors into the most basic risk factors by taking risk management theory as the basic theory and combining quantitative and qualitative risk grading. Hillson and Grimaldi and others first began to integrate the WBS and RBS [28]. The basic principle of the WBS-RBS method is to organically combine the specific risk factors defined in the RBS with the effective scope of work defined in the WBS to construct the risk identification coupling matrix to identify the risk of each underlying unit and establish the risk index system of the engineering project. The steps of WBS-RBS method are as follows [25]: (1) construct the WBS work breakdown structure; (2) build the RBS risk decomposition structure; and (3) associate WBS with RBS, establish WBS-RBS coupling matrix with the work package set at the bottom of WBS and the risk element set at the bottom of RBS, and then analyze the existing risks.

2.1. Establishment of the EPB Shield Construction Work Breakdown Structure

According to the WBS principle, the EPB shield construction process is decomposed into two levels.(1)According to the main construction stages of the EPB, the first-level WBS is divided into three stages: preparation before EPB shield construction, EPB shield tunneling construction, and EPB ancillary equipment construction.(2)Combined with the characteristics of each stage of EPB shield construction, the first-level WBS is decomposed into different second-level WBSs by distinguishing different processes.

According to the WBS method, the EPB shield construction work breakdown structure is shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Establishment of the EPB Shield Construction Risk Decomposition Structure

According to the RBS principle, the risk sources of EPB shield construction are decomposed into two levels.(1)According to the characteristics of EPB shield construction, the first-level RBS can be divided into three types: geological condition risk source, environmental risk source along the line, and other risk sources.(2)On the basis of the first-level risk decomposition source, the EPB shield construction risk is analyzed in detail, and the first-level risk structure is decomposed into the second-level risk structure.

The risk decomposition structure of EPB shield construction based on the RBS method is shown in Figure 2.

2.3. Establishing the Coupling Matrix of EPB Shield Construction Risk Identification

By coupling the bottom units of the WBS (Figure 1) and RBS (Figure 2), the coupling matrix of EPB shield construction risk identification can be obtained, as shown in Table 1. The result is “0” when the two couplings do not produce risk and “1” when the two couplings produce risk. The results of the EPB shield construction risk identification coupling matrix are classified as follows: (1) W₁₁R₁₁, W₁₁R₁₄, W₁₁R₃₁, and W₁₁R₃₃: end reinforcement failure of shield shaft; (2) W₁₂R₁₁, W₁₂R₁₄, W₁₂R₃₁, and W₁₂R₃₃: tunnel portal collapsed; (3) W₁₃R₃₁, and W₁₃R₃₃: backup system failure; (4) W₁₄R₃₁, W₁₄R₃₂, and W₁₄R₃₃: bracket deformation and instability; (5) W₁₅R₃₁ and W₁₅R₃₃: deviation of the shield tunneling route; (6) W₁₆R₃₁, W₁₆R₃₂, and W₁₆R₃₃: failure of the shield machine assembly and commissioning; (7) W₂₁R₁₁, W₂₁R₃₁, and W₂₁R₃₂: collapse of the tunnel face; (8) W₂₁R₂₁, W₂₃R₂₁, and W₂₄R₂₁: settlement of surface buildings; (9) W₂₁R₂₂, W₂₃R₂₂, and W₂₄R₂₂: buried pipelines damage; (10) W₂₁R₂₃, W₂₃R₂₃, and W₂₄R₂₃: deformation of underground buildings or structures; (11) W₂₁R₂₄, W₂₃R₂₄, and W₂₄R₂₄: road surface heave or settlement; (12) W₂₂R₁₁ and W₂₂R₁₄: water and sand gushing in tunnel face; (13) W₂₂R₁₃, W₂₂R₃₂, and W₃₁R₁₃: harmful gas accumulation in tunnel; (14) W₂₂R₃₁ and W₂₂R₃₃: discontinuous transportation of muck; (15) W₂₅R₁₁, W₂₅R₁₂, W₂₅R₃₁, and W₂₅R₃₃: cutting tools damage; (16) W₃₁R₃₁ and W₃₁R₃₃: poor ventilation and dust collection in the tunnel; (17) W₃₂R₃₁ and W₃₂R₃₃: tunnel lighting system failure; (18) W₃₃R₁₄, W₃₃R₃₁, and W₃₁R₃₃: water accumulation in tunnel; and (19) W₃₄R₃₁, W₃₃R₃₂, and W₃₁R₃₃: leakage of lining segment.

2.4. Establishment of the EPB Shield Construction Risk Index System

By combining the results of the EPB shield construction risk identification coupling matrix with the experience of onsite management personnel and expert suggestions and sorting out and classifying the risks that can reflect EPB shield construction, the final EPB shield construction risk index system is shown in Figure 3.

3. EPB Shield Construction Risk Assessment

3.1. Establishment of the Fuzzy Relation Matrix

3.1.1. Establishment of the Risk Assessment Set

Risk evaluation refers to the description of risk evaluation indicators by using qualitative language. The evaluation set in this paper refers to the collection of comments made by judges on various construction risks of EPB shields. According to the characteristics of EPB shield construction, the comments can be divided into five levels:

3.1.2. Establishment of the Risk Factor Set

The factor set involved in this paper is based on the EPB shield construction risk index system. The first-level index risk factor set is as follows: ; the second-level index risk factor set is as follows: , , , .

3.1.3. Establishment of the Membership Vector

The expert evaluation method is a quantitative evaluation method based on quantitative and qualitative analysis, through which the target events are scored by experts. The expert group consists of 10 experts who have worked in the field of tunnel construction safety for more than 8 years, including 6 doctors and 4 masters. According to the grade of the risk evaluation, the evaluation index of each risk factor is scored, and the membership vector of EPB shield construction risk evaluation is constructed [29]. The membership vector of any risk factor concentration evaluation index in the EPB shield construction risk evaluation index u to in the risk evaluation set V is as follows: .

3.1.4. Establishment of the Fuzzy Relation Matrix

According to the construction principle of the membership vector, the membership vector of each risk index to the evaluation set in the EPB shield construction risk assessment is obtained. The fuzzy relation matrix between the risk evaluation set and the factor set is obtained by combining the membership vectors corresponding to each risk index as follows:where and is the membership of the i-th factor to the j-th risk level.

3.2. Determination of the Weight Vector

According to the established EPB shield construction risk evaluation index system, the weight of each risk factor in the EPB shield construction risk evaluation is calculated by using the analytic hierarchy process [30].

3.2.1. Establishment of the Fuzzy Complementary Judgment Matrix

The fuzzy complementary judgment matrix R represents a comparison of the relative importance of the factors related to a certain factor in the previous level. Assuming that the factor of the upper level is C and the related factor of the lower level is , the fuzzy complementary judgment matrix can be expressed as in Table 2.

Factor means that when factor and factor are compared with the upper level factor C, factor and factor have a membership degree of “more important than.” By using the 0.1∼0.9 scale method [31], the relative importance of any two factors in this layer to the upper layer is quantitatively described, as shown in Table 3.

After a quantitative description with the 0.1∼0.9 scale method, the following fuzzy complementary judgment matrix can be obtained by comparing the upper factor C with the related factor of this layer.

3.2.2. Construction of the Fuzzy Consistent Judgment Matrix

By using the following formula to transform the fuzzy complementary judgment matrix obtained in step (1), the fuzzy consistent matrix is obtained [20]:

3.2.3. Weight Calculation and Ranking of the Fuzzy Consistent Judgment Matrix

The weight value has a direct impact on the final result. Let the weight values of factor in the fuzzy consistent judgment matrix be ; then, the following relation can be obtained from the above discussion:

In the formula, refers to a measure of the difference degree of the evaluated objects, which is related to the number and difference degree of the evaluated objects. When the number or difference degree of the evaluated objects is larger, the value of is larger, .

When the factors in the fuzzy consistent judgment matrix and the corresponding weights satisfy and , the weights can be obtained by the following formula:

When the fuzzy complementary judgment matrix is not transformed into a fuzzy consistent matrix or , the least square method can be used to solve the weight vector, that is, to solve the following constrained programming problem:

By means of the Lagrange multiplier method, the constrained programming problem can be solved as follows: unconstrained programming problem:where T is the Lagrange multiplier. The weight vector can be obtained by solving the equations by taking the partial derivative of with respect to and making it zero.

3.3. Nonlinear Comprehensive Evaluation

The fuzziness and uncertainty of the EPB shield construction process render the risk assessment nonlinear. However, in the existing fuzzy evaluation methods of the EPB shield construction risk analysis, the calculation is usually carried out by combining a linear fuzzy operator, which makes it difficult to solve the influence of the prominent index factors on the evaluation results. Therefore, this paper combined nonlinear fuzzy operator analysis to render the evaluation results more practical [32]. The nonlinear fuzzy matrix composition operator is defined as follows:where is the risk index weight vector, ; is the factor membership vector, ; is the index prominent influence degree coefficient vector, denoted as , and . When the risk factors have a more prominent influence on the EPB shield construction risk assessment, the index prominent influence coefficient is larger; when the risk factors have no prominent influence on the EPB shield construction risk assessment, the index prominent influence coefficient is 1. The value method of the index prominent influence coefficient is determined according to the 1∼9 scale method and value principle, and the specific value standard is shown in Table 4 [25]^.

In addition, when using a nonlinear operator to synthesize a fuzzy matrix, to facilitate calculation, each value of the single factor evaluation matrix should be greater than 1. Therefore, formula (8) can be used for fuzzy transformation:where is the value of the initial fuzzy evaluation matrix and is the value of the transformed nonlinear fuzzy evaluation matrix. To keep the same proportion relationship between the evaluation matrix and the initial matrix of the nonlinear fuzzy matrix, when , is taken; when , is taken.

3.4. New Risk Assessment Model for EPB Shield Construction

Based on the above analysis, on the basis of the EPB shield construction risk index system obtained by the WBS-RBS method, the traditional fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) and nonlinear operator are combined for comprehensive calculation, and a new EPB shield construction risk assessment model based on the nonlinear fuzzy analytic hierarchy process is established. The specific risk assessment and analysis process of the new model is shown in Figure 4.

The new risk assessment model of EPB shield construction based on a nonlinear fuzzy analytic hierarchy process can more objectively reflect the outstanding impact of adverse risk factors on the risk assessment of EPB shield construction. By using the pairwise comparison method to collect the expert questionnaire and establishing the fuzzy complementary matrix and transforming it into the fuzzy consistent judgment matrix, it not only meets the accuracy and consistency requirements of the expert score but also avoids the complex consistency test. When this model is applied to the risk assessment of EPB shield construction, the analysis results are more reasonable, feasible, and operatable.

4. Project Case Analysis

4.1. Project Overview

To verify the rationality and effectiveness of the model, it is applied to the EPB shield construction section of a tunnel project in Hangzhou. The EPB shield section is mainly located in muddy silty clay stratum. The shield passes under a DN610 mm high-pressure natural gas pipeline once, with a buried depth of approximately 5.5∼8.6 m; passes under a DN500 mm medium pressure natural gas pipeline once, with a buried depth of approximately 2.2 m; passes under a 400 200 mm optical fiber military optical cable twice, with buried depth of approximately 0.74∼0.9 m. In addition, there are small and medium-sized buildings along the construction line, and the nearest building is only 10 m away from the tunnel centerline. The geological formation of the tunnel project in Hangzhou is shown in Figure 5.

4.2. Weight Vector Calculation

Step 1: The fuzzy complementary matrix is established by using the 0.1∼0.9 scale method. According to the established risk index system, the matrix between the first layer and the second layer is set as , the matrix between the second layer and the third layer is set as . Take as an example. Step 2: The fuzzy complementary matrix is transformed into a fuzzy consistent judgment matrix according to formulas (1) and (2). (Table 5) Step 3: Calculate the weight value of each factor in the fuzzy consistent matrix of each level through formula (4). To improve the resolution of sorting, take . Then, the weight value of each factor of layer B relative to layer A is given in Table 6.

Similarly, the weight value of each factor of layer C relative to layer B is as follows:(i)Risk of the geological condition:(ii)Environmental risk sources along the shield construction line:(iii)Risk of the shield machine:(iv)Risk of the shield tunnel:

According to the calculated weight value, the environmental risk along the line and the risk of the tunnel itself are the two factors that affect the safety of EPB shield construction, and the other two risk factors cannot be ignored. Among the environmental risk factors along the line, the risk of surface building settlement and underground pipeline damage is greater. Among the risk factors for the tunnel itself, the risk of excavation route deviation and segment floating is greater.

4.3. Calculation of the Membership Degree

The expert evaluation method is used to score the secondary risk factors in the EPB shield construction risk assessment of a tunnel project in Hangzhou. The membership degree values of the risk factors are as shown in Table 7:

By combining the membership value of secondary risk factors for the EPB shield construction risk assessment with formula (8), the fuzzy evaluation matrix AA of the geological condition risk, the fuzzy evaluation matrix BB of the environmental risk along the line, the fuzzy evaluation matrix cc of the shield equipment risk, and the fuzzy evaluation matrix DD of tunnel risk are constructed, which can be used for the nonlinear fuzzy comprehensive calculation and are constructed as follows

4.4. Determination of the Risk Index Prominent Influence Degree Coefficient

According to the actual situation of the EPB shield construction section of a tunnel project in Hangzhou and by combining the 1∼9 scale method and value principle, the values of the prominent influence coefficient of the first-level risk factors and the prominent influence coefficient of the second-level risk factors are determined as follows in Table 8:

According to the prominent influence coefficient values of the risk factors determined in Table 9, the corresponding prominent influence coefficient vectors of risk indicators of nonlinear fuzzy evaluation matrix are constructed as follows:

4.5. First-Level Nonlinear Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation

By substituting the obtained weight value of secondary risk factors, nonlinear fuzzy evaluation matrix, and prominent influence coefficient vector of risk index into formula (7), the following results can be obtained:

After normalization, the results can be obtained as follows:

In the same way, the following result is obtained:

4.6. Second-Level Nonlinear Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation

According to the above results, a new single factor evaluation matrix is constructed and transformed by formula (8) to meet the requirements of the nonlinear fuzzy evaluation calculation. The conversion results are as follows:

According to the above steps, the prominent influence coefficient matrix vector corresponding to the first-level risk factors is , and the weight vector of the first-level risk factors is . The above results are substituted into formula (7), and the results of the second-level nonlinear fuzzy comprehensive evaluation are determined as follows:

After normalization, the total risk evaluation vector of EPB shield construction of a tunnel project in Hangzhou is obtained as follows:

Finally, combined with the principle of the maximum membership degree, it can be judged that the overall construction risk level of the EPB shield of the tunnel project in Hangzhou is grade 4, which indicates high risk. Among them, the greater risk is the environmental risk along the line and the risk of the tunnel itself. At the same time, the risks of the geological conditions and the shield equipment cannot be ignored, which is in line with the actual situation of the EPB shield construction of the tunnel project in Hangzhou.

5. Discussion

To verify the effectiveness of the EPB shield construction risk assessment model based on the nonlinear fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, the linear fuzzy analytic hierarchy process is used to calculate the data provided by the same group of field managers and experts, that is, the prominent influence coefficient of each risk factor at all levels is 1. The fuzzy comprehensive evaluation vector of the calculation results is as follows:

According to the principle of maximum membership degree, the overall construction risk level of EPB shield construction section of the tunnel project in Hangzhou is grade 3, which belongs to medium risk. However, the nonlinear FAHP considers the influence of outstanding index factors on the risk level, so the risk level obtained by the nonlinear FAHP is higher than that obtained by the linear FAHP.

The surface displacement monitoring data above the pipeline of the EPB shield obliquely crossing the construction section of the high-pressure natural gas pipeline are selected for verification. The layout of surface monitoring points in the selected construction section, the surface monitoring displacement above the pipeline, and the surface monitoring displacement above the shield tunnel are shown in Figures 6–8:

This section is a construction section of EPB shield tunneling under a natural gas high-pressure pipeline at a small intersection angle of 11.4° and is mainly located at the underpass mileage of K5 + 240 ∼ K5 + 200. According to the undercrossing range of the new tunnel in the existing pipeline, monitoring points are arranged on the surface of the upper part of the pipeline at a distance of 10 m before and after undercrossing the pipeline. It can be seen from Figures 7 and 8 that during the period of the EPB shield crossing the high-pressure natural gas pipeline obliquely, the ground surface above the pipeline and above the tunnel is greatly disturbed by the shield, showing an uplift state as a whole. Among them, the maximum uplift of the surface above the pipeline is 16.43 mm, which exceeds the control value of displacement ≤10 mm required by the control index of the underground pressure pipeline, and the maximum uplift of the surface above the shield tunnel is 12.74 mm. This finding proves that the EPB shield construction risk assessment model based on a nonlinear fuzzy analytic hierarchy process can well reflect the actual risk situation of construction and has a certain reliability and effectiveness.

6. Conclusion

The construction risk index system of an EPB shield in a soft soil area is constructed by the WBS and RBS methods, the judgment matrix is constructed by a fuzzy consistent matrix, and a nonlinear fuzzy mathematics theory is introduced to discuss the construction risk of the EPB shield:(1)Based on the WBS-RBS method, the risk index system of EPB shield construction is constructed, which makes up for possible risk omission or incomplete identification in the expert evaluation method so that the constructed risk index system can more comprehensively reflect various risk factors and the actual situation of all levels of risk in EPB shield construction.(2)By using pairwise comparison method to collect expert questionnaires and transforming fuzzy complementary matrix to establish fuzzy consistency judgment matrix, it not only meets the accuracy and consistency requirements of expert scoring but also avoids the cumbersome consistency test.(3)Combining the nonlinear operator with the traditional fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, a new risk assessment model for EPB shield construction in soft soil areas based on a nonlinear fuzzy analytic hierarchy process is constructed. The outstanding influence of the risk factors is considered, and the nonlinear characteristics of the assessment process are reflected, which makes the EPB shield construction risk assessment results more reasonable. The validity of the model is verified by nonlinear calculation and linear calculation of the data provided by the same group of experts, and the results are compared with the measured data[33–35].

Data Availability

The data for the final analysis in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Key Research and Development Project in Shaanxi Province (Nos. 2020SF-373 and 2021SF-523).

References

X. Li and X. Chen, “Using grouting of shield tunneling to reduce settlements of overlying tunnels: case study in shenzhen metro construction,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 138, no. 4, pp. 574–584, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Ding, L. Zhang, and X. Wu, “Safety management in tunnel construction: case study of Wuhan metro construction in China,” Safety Science, vol. 62, pp. 8–15, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. H. Einstein, “Risk and risk analysis in rock engineering,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 141–155, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H.-H. Choi, H.-N. Cho, and J. W. Seo, “Risk assessment methodology for underground construction projects,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 130, no. 2, pp. 258–272, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Dağdeviren and İ. Yüksel, “Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for behavior-based safety management,” Information Sciences, vol. 178, no. 6, pp. 1717–1733, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Zhou and P. Cao, “Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for optimization of urban deep foundation pit support scheme in soft soil area,” Journal of Central South University, vol. 43, pp. 3582–3588, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Liu, K. Q. Wang, M. Huang, P. Huang, and H. G. Zhang, “Study on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process of risk in subway deep foundation pit engineering,” Journal of Underground Space and Engineering, vol. 11, pp. 257–264, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
X. Deng, R. Wang, and T. Xu, “Risk assessment of tunnel portals in the construction stage based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process,” Archives of Civil Engineering, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 69–87, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Lu, Z. Huo, B. Zhao, J. Xiang, and J. He, “Tunnel collapse risk assessment based on Fuzzy AHP and consequence equivalence method,” Tunnel construction (Chinese and English), vol. 38, pp. 31–38, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Samantra, S. Datta, and S. S. Mahapatra, “Fuzzy based risk assessment module for metropolitan construction project: an empirical study,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 65, pp. 449–464, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Kuchta and E. Ptaszyńska, “Fuzzy Based Risk Register for Construction Project Risk Assessment,” American Institute of Physics Conference Series, vol. 1863, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Yu, Y. Li, and L. Li, “Evaluating Some Dynamic Aspects of TBMs Performance in Uncertain Complex Geological Structures,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 96, Article ID 103216, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Nezarat, F. Sereshki, and M. Ataei, “Ranking of geological risks in mechanized tunneling by using Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP),” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 50, pp. 358–364, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H.-M. Lyu, S.-L. Shen, A. Zhou, and J. Yang, “Risk assessment of mega-city infrastructures related to land subsidence using improved trapezoidal FAHP,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 717, Article ID 135310, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Hu, B. Zhou, F. Wang, and Z. NIU, “Safety assessment technology of highway tunnel structure based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process,” Journal of Natural Disasters, vol. 27, pp. 41–49, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Zhu, M. Lei, W. Wang, M. Chen, and B. Zheng, “Fuzzy evaluation method and application of long tunnel construction organization,” Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, vol. 37, pp. 159–164, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
X. Y. Wang and Z. Ma, “Research on safety early warning standard of large-scale underground utility tunnel in ground fissure active period,” Frontiers in Earth Science, vol. 10, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Wang and Q. Song, “Research on deformation law of deep foundation pit of station in core region of saturated soft loess based on monitoring,” Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2022, Article ID 7848152, pp. 1–16, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Zheng, H.-M. Lyu, and A. Zhou, “Risk assessment of geohazards along Cheng-Kun railway using fuzzy AHP incorporated into GIS,” Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1508–1531, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Lv, “Ranking of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process based on fuzzy consistent matrix,” Fuzzy systems and mathematics, vol. 02, pp. 79–85, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Tavakolan and H. Etemadinia, “Fuzzy weighted interpretive structural modeling: improved method for identification of risk interactions in construction projects,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 143, no. 11, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Zou, J. Zhou, C. Zhou, and L. Song, “Comprehensive flood risk assessment based on set pair analysis-variable fuzzy sets model and fuzzy AHP,” Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 525–546, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Lee, “Determination of priority weights under multiattribute decision-making situations: AHP versus Fuzzy AHP,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 141, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Li, K. K. Phoon, X. Du, and M. Zhang, “Improved AHP method and its application in risk identification,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 139, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Song, D. Guo, T. Xu, and W. Hua, “Research on TBM construction risk evaluation model based on nonlinear fuzzy analytic hierarchy process,” Geotechnical mechanics, vol. 42, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
H. M. Lyu, W. J. Sun, S. L. Shen, and A. N. Zhou, “Risk assessment using a new consulting process in fuzzy AHP,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 146, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Zhang, “Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP),” Fuzzy systems and mathematics, vol. 02, pp. 80–88, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Hillson and S. Grimaldi, “Managing Project Risks Using a Cross Risk Breakdown Matrix,” Risk Management, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 61–76, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Xie and C. Liu, Fuzzy Mathematical Method and its Application, Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press, Wuhan, 2006.
M. Yao and S. Zhang, “Fuzzy Consistent Matrix and its Application in Soft Science,” Systems engineering, vol. 8, no. 1, 1997.
View at: Google Scholar
W. Cao, Y. Zhai et al., “Nonlinear fuzzy evaluation method for tunnel construction risk of NATM,” Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 43, pp. 105–112, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
X. H. Zhang and Y. J. Feng, “A Nonlinear Fuzzy Comprehensive Assessment Model,” Systems Engineering-theory & Practice, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Tian Shy and J. Wang Mao Jiun, “Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 50, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H.-M. Lyu and S.-L. Shen, “Inundation analysis of metro systems with the storm water management model incorporated into a geographical information system: a case study in Shanghai,” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 4293–4307, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H.-M. Lyu, S.-L. Shen, and A.-N. Zhou, “Flood risk assessment of metro systems in a subsiding environment using the interval FAHP-FCA approach,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 50, Article ID 101682, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Xueyan Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies